skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The people behind RH may come back, but the brand seems to be burned at this point.
We're not talking about a non-tangible issue here like Facebook abusing their users' privacy.
Customers see their raw money being lost by this service.
I use kitty.

"time kitty -1 true" takes about 180ms on my machine. That's more than fast enough for me, but certainly slower than many other terminals.
Even if the monk wasn't doing that, I'd be annoyed.
> Is what RH doing legal for a brokerage?

At this point, nobody cares - Reddit found a repeatable distributed exploit that cannot be patched, and the financial system's self-preservation instinct kicked in.
Concur on not knowing final design, I was trying to convey that the design presented was extremely polarizing.

I am mostly concerned on lack of crumple zones for the vehicle. Given it's planned weight and performance collisions will be deadly for other vehicles.
I don't think it's an issue of Citadel not quoting GME. In my understanding, Robin Hood is allowing purchases to close a short position, so there exist quoted prices, they just don't want people expanding a long position.

If this is coming from Robin Hood, they could make the (very weak) argument that they are protecting their retail customers from themselves, but if it's coming from Citadel, it just looks like market manipulation to me.
TD's restrictions were on margins & shorts, which both put the brokerage itself at risk. They did not restrict general or options trading.
Naked short selling through unlimited "Puts" is totally LEGAL for these hedge-funds, but when people caught them pants down they are using every ILLEGAL move to cover their asses and losses.

These are the corrupt and insane people who should be punished not the people who sussed out their bullshit!

What Robinhood and other platforms are doing is market manipulation which is illegal.

The legal and reasonable thing would be to allow trading these stocks with additional "e-signs" letting the individual know that there are additional risks here.

That would actually help the retail investor.

But these brokers and buddies are happy to help their hedge fund buddies!!
Incredible shenanigans. Government needs to lower the boom.

Very much an example of how only "certain people" are allowed to win in our society and the system will intervene to ensure that established wealth retains its preferred status.
Like Facebook and Google's users, Robinhood's clients are the product. They've now learned that truth the hard way.
Sounds like you were too early! Really cool.
how do you fine those professor sites
Trading 212 in the UK has disabled purchases of GME stock. Ironically Trading 212's tagline also includes "democratising" trading.
MongoDB Basic Shell Commands (part-3)
And never mind that Big Money is following the business plan that the future of America is all of us are renters.

Well, you know, everyone but the uber-wealthy.
The Spiral of Violence
They halted the buying not the selling. That's a clear case of market manipulation.
> 10 or 15 years ago people looked at web 1.0, saw many good communities and valuable conversations and said "we need to protect free speech".

But these places almost all had "speech control". The exceptions were (in)famous.

It was decentralized, which has a lot of benefits compared to having fewer, huge platforms, but the control existed and was essential.

The "don't let platforms moderate anything but illegal content" argument is extremely disingenous. That's not how you get back to the "good old days" - or how you keep current smaller places like HN alive.

If there are problems created specifically by the big platforms being too big, target their size specifically. Regulating advertising and privacy and data tracking might be one way to start, reduce the incentive and rewards for being huge; but I think more likely, you'd want specific taxes, fees, or actions, based on userbase size.
Projects that change from Apache or GPL-like licenses to SSPL are still open source. This doesn’t mean you have to release your source code if you use these projects — only if you start selling a hosted platform that offers the software as a service. Every company I’ve seen do this was been backed into a corner by Amazon, who almost never contributes to these projects. This is nothing more than Amazon trying to kill these projects by causing fragmentation.

*Yes, I’ve read the OSI link AWS-fans always refer to.
Not the person you responded to. But they may be talking about FaceBooks's recent change to WhatsApp's privacy policy.
This is _very_ different. They halted _only_ buying, and if I wanted to buy via another brokerage I would need to wait 5 days for funds to clear in Robinhood before I could even withdraw. So they effectively shut off demand but kept supply the same, and there is absolutely no other result that can occur other than the price tanking.
Christianity is basically a dictatorship where god is the dictator. Many people consider Christianity to be a good thing, so it's not that hard to believe that a dictatorship can be more than just purely evil.

Do not let your biased associations drive the meaning of a concept. Dictatorship, democracy, communism, capitalism and socialism are not inherently good or bad and they are not "teams" you should join or support. They are concepts that have examples of success and failure when executed in the real world.
Most people claiming that Citadel is pulling the strings seems to be missing the following facts:

- Robinhood was one of many brokerages to implement trading restrictions. e.g. Bank of America/Merrill Edge also shut down buy orders for GME. Citadel does not have the same relationship with these other brokerages. So, to say Robinhood made their decision based on a conflict of interest doesn't hold water.

- Just because Citadel accounts for $xx million of Robinhood revenue, doesn't mean Robinhood stands to lose $xx million if they piss off Citadel. There are plenty of other market makers willing to fulfill Robinhood's orders. Presumably these other market makers would pay slightly less than Citadel, but Robinhood would only stand to lose some small percentage of $xx million.

Putting yourself in Robinhood's shoes, it makes little financial sense to comply with Citadel's demands even if Citadel attempted to coerce them into implementing these trade restrictions.
I can't agree with this.

For instance, if Honda put a car bomb in 1 Civic in a million, it'd still be one of the safest car designs around. But it's totally unnecessary, and they should be condemned. That they're overall much safer than my AMC Gremlin doesn't enter into it.
It would oxidize the match that’s being dropped in.
Posted this in another thread, but TDA and other blocked buying on margin, not buying with your own money. Completely different IMO. Source: Their own statements and buying GME this morning on TDA without issue.
It looks like everything is still available on Fidelity.
It doesn't change the fact that the modern financial and economic system are morally bankrupt. We don't learn from our mistakes, and it becomes normal to have these cycles of collapse then build back. These cycles are caused by interest/usury being at the core that drives the system (why did the government move away from the gold standard? because they want to be able to print their way out of their usurious debts, it's all related).

Look up Iraq during Umar II's rule, how there were no people left to take Zakat because there was a proper economic system.
Unlike Google (idk about facebook), there are literally dozens of competitors to robinhood, including mobile trading platforms.
I know what a short squeeze is. The problem is that you may have tons of people planning to exit right around the same time, and there may not be enough trading volume for them to get out at prices they're happy with.

The fear is that many Robinhood users may not realize that exiting their position may be much much harder than they expect. If the entire value proposition is that Melvin Capital is being squeezed, what happens to the price of GME the moment after Melvin Capital exits their position?

This should not be construed as investment advice in any way.
Old way indeed. I always asked why this went out of fashion.

JavaScript thrived under the reign of JSON.
I have used tsp to send hundres of millions of euros for a company. great tool

Wish it has chaining of commands - if xx fails then do yyy
It is not cut and dry. I think we need to find the balance between "no/hardly work from home" vs "never come in office". Employers have to be flexible about letting employees work from home whenever needed. When I was an employee, I wanted flexibility to sometimes do that when needed. I usually wanted to go to office because I like getting out of the house. I get that some people love working from home 100% but I am a big proponent of finding a balance and not going extreme one way or the other.
Yes, but it was higher.
I think those are two separate matters:

Indeed the average reading skills seem to continue to erode (or, at least, attention spans have been shown to decline, the Flynn effect has stalled, and functional iliteracacy of supposedly educated people is at an all times high)

... but we still should strive for clarity, whether we're addressing the average Joe or DFW (perhaps you've meant EWD?).
M1 blocking now too.
Thread on alternatives to Robinhood. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25946366
I use phoenix live views with immense success. This seems similar.
Online discussions quickly fall into the Obligatory Contrarian trap when there's little else to latch on to.

So in every one of these threads, HN is all of a sudden nostalgic for two hours a day commuting, shelling out-of-pocket for parking, eating junk food for lunch every day...

Offices cost money. This is why WFH isn't going away. Even people who are required to go into the office periodically might find themselves sharing temp space with others who use the same (reduced) space on alternating days.

As you can tell from this comment, I love WFH and will never go back....and it doesn't look like I'll have to. While the poor office dwellers are sitting in their cars, I'm enjoying a nice morning run.
I think this is the right set of questions. I can add my own anecdotal experience. In the past, I ran voice chat servers, IRC servers, forums, rsync and sftp servers. I gave people a way to have their own small communities that were mostly free of censorship provided they were not breaking the laws of my country. For a while, those things were popular, but as the big centralized sites came along, they designed their UX to be low friction and high endorphin reward. They added more discoverability and ability to have bigger communities. People preferred this over what I could give them. With time, my IRC servers lost favor for things like Facebook messenger and Discord. Rsync and SFTP were "too hard" and everyone moved to Dropbox and related sites. My remaining SFTP server is now just hit by bots, very confused bots. I shut down the last voice chat server because people would only use it when Discord was offline. On top of all that, internet trolls have evolved beyond psychological warfare. Now they are good at scripting uploads of bad content and auto-reporting their own content to take down domains and servers regardless of how fast response-driven moderation is. This means I would have to set up forums to require every message to be screened, or use some expensive machine learning and that gets into a whole mess of privacy problems. It's just not worth my time and effort to play those games, especially given the lack of interest in using smaller communities.
Full remote is not the future, I'm sure that most people don't want to work remotely full time, it will most likely be 2days/week at home type of thing.
The Many Faces of Alice in Wonderland
TOS don't always hold up. Plaintiffs have successfully convinced juries that companies make their TOS so difficult to understand and lengthy that the average user cannot read/understand it.

Recently companies have also added language that allows them to change the TOS at any time, which is questionably legal.
Bowing to US pressure is exactly what companies do when they come under regulatory pressure. It's not a strange headline at all. Companies with large market share routinely curb their own actions to limit or bow to government pressure that is always present.

Intel would have eaten Nvidia and ARM a long time ago if that were not how things worked. Intel has been under 24/7 government pressure for decades. They're not allowed to behave the way Nvidia and AMD are allowed to behave, they're not allowed to acquire companies that some of their competitors are allowed to acquire. Intel has been on its knees bowing to government pressure for decades at this point, with two hands tied behind its back.
Huh, what? Nobody is “obligated” to create a test suite. But they wrote that a simple change could take hours to review. Creating a test suite might pay for itself (time-wise, that is) in the long run, if they want to accept external patches. Having patch reviews take hours is not the only option.
Glad to know bad trades are illegal now. /s
I'm not sure I'd want all-or-nothing to be the norm. I was a full-time remote worker before the pandemic, but I think one of the reasons it worked so well for me is because I had been able to build up a lot of the working relationships I have now in person. I made the decision to go remote because it was just going to work better for me, and I was fully aware that I would have to work at not being forgotten by the people in the office. There are ways to deal with it: you need to overcommunicate, make conscious efforts to get in on "office gossip" (the non-toxic kind), etc. An occcasional office visit or retreat makes a big difference.

Some of the people I've enjoyed working with the most have really struggled with the 100% remote dynamic during the pandemic. They have different personalities which have made it hard for them to be stuck at home, but those personalities make them great team members too. I'm not sure I'd want to just never work with people like that again.
Not really, it can be multi factor, with a set of minimum values in several metrics being required before parental wealth becomes the dominant factor.

To be glib, some people leave millions to their cats but I don't see any entrepreneur kittens.....

That is, the baseline genetic, cultural, and environmental potential for entrepreneurship probably needs to be in place before familial wealth becomes so important.

Given that Saudi Arabia has entirely different ethnic groups, with an extremely different culture, and a very different climate and business environment, I am not surprised at all that the principle factor in north American derived populations entrepreneurship isn't that in the Saudi Arabian population.
It would not be difficult, or unconstitutional, for Congress to pass a law restricting the trades that non-accredited investors are allowed to make.
This is all very true but UBI isn't the solution.

The middle class can win this game with a perspective change. Instead of saddling their kids with school loans and pressuring them to "get a job" right out of school, they should give them 5 years where they "angel" them in their own houses for a stake in the company. Get four young sharp kids a couple of years with no bills to pay and I bet they could create something viable.

This is the difference. Entrepreneurs need funding and encouragement. Parents could play this role instead of VCs and they could bank big when funding comes. You don't need $MM to fund a start-up if you approach it will bootstrap principles.
Let's do at most two things at a time so that we do them well.
This is so true, I Twitch streamed myself developing a game, for a total of 64 hours. And looking back, I found the parts where development slowed down is when I was confused--I almost want to yell at myself--hindsight really is 20/20.

What I took away is the faster I can recognize I'm in confusion, the faster I can get out of that state--it means I really need to focus on learning what I'm not understanding, and then come up with a plan to change the actual system into what I want it to do.

Another thing is, though I've really refined text editing skills, it's interesting to see yourself struggling to _simply edit text_. So while watching myself, I jotted down a few ideas of shortcuts that could help.

Final thing, that I don't know how to fix, is sometimes I'm not motivated, or not in the mood, or scatter brained. Honestly, looking at myself, I don't know what my deal is. If I can just force myself to turn on the stream, then my friends will pop in and encourage me, so that has really helped. Though I'll still hit work that I'm like ugh.
All retail brokerages sell order flow to the wholesale brokerages, it is part of the market structure.

Rule 606 disclosures enumerate each brokerage's arrangement:
eg. https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHS%20SEC%2... from https://robinhood.com/us/en/about/legal/

Fidelity:
https://clearingcustody.fidelity.com/app/literature/item/990... from https://clearingcustody.fidelity.com/app/item/RD_13569_21696...
1. Europe has healthcare but not basic income.

2. Innovation and entrepreneurship are not the same thing. Innovation is coming up with something new, entrepreneurship is starting a new business to make money. The former does not always lead to the latter, and the latter does not always require the former (in fact, it rarely does).

3. What the research in this study shows is that limitations of the financial and survival sort do not drive entrepreneurship.
It’s not just them. Trading 212 have pulled the same shenanigans.
It's a different Citadel, from here: https://www.theverge.com/22251427/reddit-gamestop-stock-shor...

At least one Wall Street firm has taken heavy losses — Melvin Capital Management, which was shorting GameStop, among other bets. It’s been bailed out by Citadel, which, confusingly, is not the same thing as Citadel Securities. (Citadel is a hedge fund, not a market maker.)
> for liability reasons

For trying to get some positive media coverage, after being constantly bashed and blamed by them for the uneducated retail trader boom.
> Don't call yourself Robin Hood if you are going to turn your back on the folks in Sherwood forest after one phone call from the Sheriff of Nottingham

https://mobile.twitter.com/cvpayne/status/135482042821721293...
Microsoft or Oracle will be glad to sell you something then. Geeze the babies around here.. not every project maintainer is going to agree with you as was apparently the crux of the original complaint. You don’t always get your way. And Apparently just having the ability to fork the source and do whatever the fuck you want is not enough for these pratts.
I think so too, but as someone not in any sort of GME position, but on TDA (which is being acquired by Schwab anyway), this is a good reason for me to accelerate my search to move off the platform to a more retail friendly brokerage.
The same way that tweeting "funding secured" puts you in jail?
Anyone who says that (anyone who works had can build a company like Amazon) is a fool. Most likely suffering from survivorship bias.

You cannot. But Bezos did not inherit billions and living on them. He is self made, maybe he did not start at zero, but he did 1000x or 10000x (or even more) what he received. If someone had received a loan of 1000 dollars, I doubt anyone would say he isn't self made when he reached a million.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this and this isn't 'naked shorting'.

I have pretty low confidence in the detailed specifics here, but I saw some discussion on Twitter that naked shorting being legal could have actually prevented the squeeze we're seeing. [0]

The reason for the extra >100% has to do with how the stock lending works (Matt Levine wrote a bit about this recently). [1] Quoted below.

--

"This does not necessarily mean a lot of people are doing evil illegal nefarious naked shorting! Really, I promise! There is no special limit on shorting at 100% of shares outstanding! Here is an explanation of how options market makers (discussed below) are allowed to short without a locate, but I want to offer an even simpler explanation. There are 100 shares. A owns 90 of them, B owns 10. A lends her 90 shares to C, who shorts them all to D. Now A owns 90 shares, B owns 10 and D owns 90—there are 100 shares outstanding, but 190 shares show up on ownership lists. (The accounts balance because C owes 90 shares to A, giving C, in a sense, negative 90 shares.) Short interest is 90 shares out of 100 outstanding. Now D lends her 90 shares to E, who shorts them all to F. Now A owns 90, B 10, D 90 and F 90, for a total of 280 shares. Short interest is 180 shares out of 100 outstanding. No problem! No big deal! You can just keep re-borrowing the shares. F can lend them to G! It's fine."

--

I still think what Robinhood did here is both wrong and a stupidly short-sighted that will damage their brand, but there's so much over confident misinformation about what's happening surrounding this that it makes it harder to understand.

The NYT is no better - another dumb Taylor Lorenz article got less right than most random Twitter threads.

[0]: https://twitter.com/simoj_/status/1354664677364609026

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-01-25/money-...
Horseshoe theory is evidently more than just a theory.
1) This is ideological bullshit rather than a good faith argument. 2) Adjusted for inflation, I'm sure this description fits more than one president, so you'll need to be more specific. 3) Whichever example it may be, I'm sure that president also had a wealth of credentials, connections, shibboleths, etc. of greater value than a mere one-million fiats.
You may work on some fancy model but at the end of the day you are taking a risk and there is a possibility to lose in the worst possible way. Call it games, YOLO or hedge better than competitors.

Maybe, the problem was just transferred to someone else so they can remove it from their statements. And now that someone is trying to deal with this.
Unless we have trustable source with all the details on how that position has been closed, I don't think it's safe to assume anything.
Rates of entrepreneurship are higher in Scandinavian countries than they are in the US.
But which kind of token are you buying / selling? Anything that represents a real company in the US won't be able to do so outside of the legal framework.
Not exactly a technology, but parents who are mathematicians would be my guess. Developing a reasonably deep and intuitive understanding of statistics, probability and linear algebra at a young age would be a huge advantage, especially when coupled with eg R or Python.
A now-old song has the lyrics "everybody knows that the dice are loaded" and, outside of "doing it for the lulz," part of this exercise is to expose the collusion as a kind of carnival. Watch Big Tech scramble to the aid of Big Money! Witness the flimsiest of excuses being generated in the hopes that one will stick! See with your own eyes the scramble to protect the usual suspects!

And what is pretty amazing is that some folks think that if they just stamp out this one, they can go back to (big) business as usual: money made by a select few, and the small fry can hope that some crumbs might trickle down to them, if only by accident. My bet is that this is going to happen again -- perhaps not exactly the same way, but it will be another nasty demonstration of the self-protection that has managed to be the sign of the entrenched.
What was the presenter wrong about?

And can't both be true? Developed countries need to reduce per capita emissions and developing countries need to reduce capita increase. 1000 * 1 = 100 * 10 and 2000 * 1 > 100 * 10.

Also on the plus side, reducing excessive population growth will reduce local resource need and thus local resource wars.